Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
2014
NFCR discussion needing closure 1
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Arthur Dove
Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Daktronics logo.PNG
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#BBC Television Shakespeare
- WP:NFCR#File:KPTLlogo2013.png
- WP:NFCR#File:MAG osmani.jpg
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Arena Football Logo 1987-2002.png
- WP:NFCR#File:Tsar Dusan's coin.gif
- WP:NFCR#File:Alex Katz's 1970 painting of his son 'Vincent with Open Mouth'.jpg
- WP:NFCR#File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg
- is the current list. Werieth (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32#RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded? (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done A close would not help now. The text that was under discussion has changed significantly since the RfC was started. Some of the issues under discussion appear to be unresolved but if people are concerned about that it would be easier to start a new discussion that takes the current text as a starting point. To cap it all, the RfC is in a talk-page archive. Yaris678 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Knockout (violent game)#Change title (initiated 8 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer (initiated 27 December 2013)? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion which says: "Should Wikipedia provide a more prominent disclaimer in general, or on health and medical content?"
Please close the discussion after 26 January 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 North American cold wave#RFC: What should the name of this article be? (initiated 9 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done I have just closed it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir/UserProfileIntro
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Muhmmadsabir/UserProfileIntro (both initiated 16 January 2014)? Because the discussions are related, I recommend that the same closer assess the consensus in both discussions to ensure consistency. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Firewall (physics)#RfC: What mention, if any, should be made of Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper? Thanks, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Closed by Gaijin42 (talk · contribs) Armbrust The Homunculus 22:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 January 2 are over one month old and should be relisted or dispositioned. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have just closed the last one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Because so many WP:BLP talk page discussions are about this issue over and over again, and variations on it have been brought to WP:Reliable Sources Noticebaord repeatedly - and because the articles all are under Austrian economics/General sanctions - it would be helpful if an experienced admin could close this WP:RSN thread. There seems to be a fairly clear, but less than perfect consensus. It was opened January 9th and the last comments were January 12, so if it's not ready for a close now, by the time someone has time to look at it, it should be ripe. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- 'Comment A bot archived it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I thought bot closure meant that what I see as a clear consensus could be put in the article, but the editor reverted my changes per the WP:RSN, so I guess we'll need an official close on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The bot didn't "close" the discussion, it just archived it due to lack of activity. In either case though, I wouldn't expect that to have an effect on someone involved being able to close the discussion. However if someone objected to your close on the grounds that you did not correctly interpret the consensus, then yes you would need to come here I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarification. And he asked me to come here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Carolmooredc:Please be clear. You had already come here.
- I merely stated that the bot archiving was irrelevant and that the bot's action did not put you in a position to declare that your view had prevailed in the discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- At this diff Jan. 21 User:SPECIFICO wrote: If you still wish to pursue this, please request on AN that the archiving be undone, and await Admin close. There's no point to any involved editor trying to infer "consensus" -- thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I have closed the discussion here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- At this diff Jan. 21 User:SPECIFICO wrote: If you still wish to pursue this, please request on AN that the archiving be undone, and await Admin close. There's no point to any involved editor trying to infer "consensus" -- thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarification. And he asked me to come here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The bot didn't "close" the discussion, it just archived it due to lack of activity. In either case though, I wouldn't expect that to have an effect on someone involved being able to close the discussion. However if someone objected to your close on the grounds that you did not correctly interpret the consensus, then yes you would need to come here I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- I thought bot closure meant that what I see as a clear consensus could be put in the article, but the editor reverted my changes per the WP:RSN, so I guess we'll need an official close on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mayer Brown#RfC: Is the "Controversy in Russia" section appropriate? (initiated 12 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- An RFC I opened expired on or around 11 Janurary, and a bot removed the template. I would appreciate it if an admin could close it as they see fit given the participation. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Futanari#Request for comment (initiated 19 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this image be present it the lede of this article, or even in the article at all?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done closing in the body, not in the lede Gaijin42 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Numbers (TV series)#RfC: What should we call this article? (initiated 14 January 2013)? Wikipedia:Requested moves generally runs for seven days, though this discussion is listed as an RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. I'm sorry that it took so long to talk to you about this; I just learned about this ANI.
- I'm the one who called for the RfC. I did so because one editor has changed the title of the show unilaterally without discussing it with the editors who work on the page first, and, since the change, that editor has been arguing that s/he did the right thing in regards to MOS:TM. In addition, someone did attempt to revert the article's title to the correct title twice, but the offending editor re-reverted the change both times.
- The title of the article had been relatively stable from the time the article was created until the change; the only time that the article's title did change was when editors decided that the title should be in sentence case and not all caps. As you can see here, most of the editors made the argument that the name should not have been changed because the use of Numb3rs was much more prevalent in reliable sources than the less common Numbers. I was pretty sure that most of the page's editors would have liked a third pair of eyes on the situation, so I filed the RfC. (The editor who we have been arguing with did suggest that we use a WP:RM to change the article's title back, but I could see that the relatively recent move from Numb3rs to Numbers (TV series) was already controversial in itself.)
- Honestly, I did not expect it to turn the RfC into another debate between that editor and me. (A full disclosure here, that editor and I have also been arguing the issue over at MOS:TM.)
- If I have done anything wrong in the eyes of the administrators, I'm sorry. If not, what is the next step? SciGal (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi SciGal (talk · contribs). You have done nothing wrong. You listed a move discussion as an RfC rather than at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Most move discussions are listed at WP:RM, but it is acceptable to list them as RfCs.
There were related discussions about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive764#Request for move protection at "Men's rights", and other action (August 2012) and Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 39#RfC: RM is standard practice for reaching broad consensus for controversial page moves (October 2012), and there was no consensus that RfC couldn't also be used to move pages.
I think it is better to list move requests under WP:RM, where the RM tag is removed only when the discussion is closed, whereas many discussions listed under RfC are unclosed after the RfC tag is removed by the bot.
To answer your question, the next step is to wait for an admin to close the requested moves discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi SciGal (talk · contribs). You have done nothing wrong. You listed a move discussion as an RfC rather than at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Most move discussions are listed at WP:RM, but it is acceptable to list them as RfCs.
- To the closer, please consider Talk:Numbers (TV series)#For your curiosity in your close. Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- The above wall-of-text should really be hatted. AN is not the place for SciGal to argue her case, especially not with crap like: "moved back to the correct title", and "the editor we are arguing with", which falsely implies that only one editor is against her proposed title. There's another falsehood concerning the initial move, which was done without controversy. The editor who moved it has not taken part in the discussion, nor has he been asked to. Finally, I object to Cunard's request to the closer. Cunard moved the section in question into the RfC to make it more visible, so it's quite obvious that the closer will consider it. I ask that someone hat everything here (this thread included) except the initial request for closure. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The current RfC was started at january 14, so it has not been 30 days yet. I do have my conclusion ready thouhg, so if it should be closed now, just give the word. — Edokter (talk) — 15:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Any objections? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done I closed this as Numbers (Tv Series). but didn't see Edokter's comment until after. If someone wants to second guess my close, I won't object. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Question Did you also considered the "Threaded discussion" section in your closure? If yes, than please fix the placement of the archiving templates. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did. placement. fixed. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Seems uncontroversial after 18 days of running. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done by The Bushranger. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nutation#RfC: Do we split this article? and if so how? (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done clear support for option 1. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Baader-Meinhof phenomenon#RfC: Page name (initiated 28 December 2013)? The question posed was: "Should this page stay at its current name, move to Frequency illusion or be split into two separate topics at each name?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Closed by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Smoke testing#RfC: Split the article and form a disambiguation page (initiated 31 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
Should this article be converted into a disambiguation page and split into the following articles:
- Smoke testing -- A disambiguation page
- Smoke testing (mechanical) -- describing the use of smoke to test pipes
- Smoke testing (electronics) -- looking for smoke on first power up
- Smoke testing (software) -- testing of major functions before formal testing
- Smoke testing (theatre) -- testing smoke machines
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done disambiguate. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:German acupuncture trials#RfC: What level of detail should be included in German acupuncture trials? (initiated 31 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done less detail. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:In a World...#Request for Comment (initiated 29 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "To be clear the content at issue is this". The participants have stated whether they support or oppose inclusion of the content. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Not include. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles#Leads in articles about Los Angeles neighborhoods (initiated 1 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done closed by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles. (initiated 14 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done Option 4. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox album#Proposed addition of a "format" parameter (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed by me as "no consensus". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:High Speed 2#RfC on Units (initiated 20 January 2014)? According to this comment by an involved editor, "Opinions from outside editors were overwhelmingly in support of the metric unit precedence." The disputed change was first made on 26 November 2013. An edit war followed on 1 January 2014. There was a lengthy discussion beginning 1 January 2014 about units at Talk:High Speed 2#Units.
I ask the closing editor to combine the two related "Units" section and assess the consensus in both discussions. Otherwise, I ask that the closer mention in the close that he or she considered the previous discussion.
Given the robust discussion and the edit war, a formal close by an uninvolved editor would be helpful in recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done closed already by involved party. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Main#Multiple articles and one main article (initiated 16 January 2013)? Please see the subsection Template talk:Main#RfC (initiated 15 January 2014)? The opening poster of the RfC wrote:
Should the main tag also be used at the top of articles for purpose #2 (as discussed above -- to tag an article that is not the main article for its topic e.g. see history of Bitcoin [1]) or should it remain recommend only for its well-established purpose #1 to point to the main article only in summary sections elsewhere?
The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done #3 but not a lot of participation, so should not be considered a hard precedent. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone here close many a discussion? --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done no consensus for inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Photography
This proposal for merge has been open for three years, and there's a clear consensus. I know I can close it myself, but I don't know what's done in those cases. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Tbhotch: If you can close it, you should. It is my understanding of WP:MERGE that the merge discussion closer does not have to actually perform the merge. Any editor can perform the merge, based on the consensus of the discussion which would be interpreted through a close. If you follow the steps on WP:MERGE to close the discussion, it will add the closed merge discussion to the Category:All articles to be merged, or you can ping one of the original merge discussion initiators to see if they would like to do it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
NFCR discussion needing closure 2
- WP:NFCR#File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg
- WP:NFCR#File:American Broadcasting Company 2013 Logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:Doctor Who theme excerpt.ogg
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#Bucky
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Goetz Family Coat of Arms.jpg
- Closed by Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Ayala Malls Logo.jpg
- Closed by Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Logo of Ever Gotesco Malls.jpg
- Closed by Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Autumn Rhythm.jpg
- Done -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 11:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#Taskbar
- Done by Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 11:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#Star Wars music
- Done by Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- is the current list. Werieth (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Relisted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled 7 days ago and consensus appears to have been reached. A CFD discussion on the related Category:Chairmen of the Federal Reserve awaits the outcome of the RM discussion. Please can the closer of the RM leave a note at the CFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Any volunteers to close the CFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done, cheers! bd2412 T 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Any volunteers to close the CFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Two Redirects for Discussion
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 5#England FH Squad 2012 Champions Trophy
- Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014 January 14#Spezial:Beobachtungsliste
Both the above discussions are long overdue for closure and the regular RfD closers have participated so cannot do it. Attention from another admin would be much appreciated. WJBscribe (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice, if someone could close Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_November_24#File:Desecration-Logo.jpg. Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Has been 9 days since the last re-listing, and there has been a lot of input since then! Three keep votes, one of them strong. Can somebody please help close this article out? Many thanks. United191 (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed as "no consensus" by User:Slakr. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
requires closure or relisting, has run the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed as "delete" by User:Slakr. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed as "delete" by User:Slakr. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") Archive 1, Archive 2 (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a recent AfD, and subsequent overturning of the "merge" decision to "no censensus" at the deletion review. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past. It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to the use of Chinese characters in the article titles. Thanks!
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed informally by Zanhe after a bot removed the RfC tag as expired. I guess that means no consensus. Either way, with no more edits in over two weeks, the issue seems to have settled. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Zanhe only placed the discussion between a {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} template, but a summary of the discussion is still needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Armbrust (talk · contribs)'s assessment of the situation. A closure is beneficial because the issue keeps resurfacing as demonstrated by the multiple discussions (see Armbrust's comment here). Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I got a message on my talk page asking me to summarize the outcome of this RFC. As Armbrust noted above, I merely added archive templates several weeks after the RfC became inactive and closed by a bot. As I was an active participant in the discussion, I don't think it's appropriate for me to summarize the outcome, but consensus is quite clear for anyone who cares to read the discussion and the votes. -Zanhe (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Given that the conclusion is pretty evident, close seems to be sufficient but by all means if there is a non-involved closing word then that would be okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment 0x0077BE requested at the talk page, that "someone summarize the results of this RfC for posterity". And I agree with them. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll take care of this one today. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah...now I see all the pleasure reading I have ahead of me on Lí, Lǐ and Lì, and various incantations of WP:OSE. I'll need the evening, so expect a summary tomorrow instead of today. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment 0x0077BE requested at the talk page, that "someone summarize the results of this RfC for posterity". And I agree with them. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Given that the conclusion is pretty evident, close seems to be sufficient but by all means if there is a non-involved closing word then that would be okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I got a message on my talk page asking me to summarize the outcome of this RFC. As Armbrust noted above, I merely added archive templates several weeks after the RfC became inactive and closed by a bot. As I was an active participant in the discussion, I don't think it's appropriate for me to summarize the outcome, but consensus is quite clear for anyone who cares to read the discussion and the votes. -Zanhe (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Armbrust (talk · contribs)'s assessment of the situation. A closure is beneficial because the issue keeps resurfacing as demonstrated by the multiple discussions (see Armbrust's comment here). Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Zanhe only placed the discussion between a {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} template, but a summary of the discussion is still needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Open since 18 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 14:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Involves 36 pages. Open since 13 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Red Slash (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 00:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Psychedelic rock#Merge proposal (initiated 3 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose that acid rock be merged into psychedelic rock." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Martin Landau#Photo from his prime (initiated 9 August 2012; see Talk:Martin Landau#RfC: Is a career image better for the lead?, which was initiated 16 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Phil Robertson#RfC: Can we include the comments Robertson made about blacks? (initiated 7 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Đorđe Pelinović#Move (initiated 9 January 2014)? See also Talk:Đorđe Pelinović#RFC (initiated 9 January 2014), which received very little input. The opening poster wrote:
This move goes against most common name in English: A simple research in google books will yield nothing for Pelinovic. Most common name is Gjergj Pelini, but I will agree to a move to George Pellinus, which is what Robert Elsie calls him in his historical dictionary.
From Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus:
However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
Note that according to Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus:
“ In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. ” Therefore, if a page has been moved from a longstanding title, and it is not possible to move the page back to its original title during the discussion, the default title will be the title prior to the contested move.
If the closer concludes that no consensus has been reached, I recommend moving the article back to its stable title. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electrical telegraph#Unfollowable citations (initiated 4 January 2014)? The question posed was: "A large amount of material has been copied from Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph into Electrical telegraph and Telegraphy articles. Do editors think that this material should be summarized down in these articles or should it be left in full?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Political television series#Possible rename (initiated 4 January 2014)? If there is a consensus, please implement the consensus. If there is no consensus, perhaps the discussion can be moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which discusses category renames. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Saturday Night Live#Sasheer Zamata (initiated 7 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There is a debate over whether the addition of Sasheer Zamata to the cast is notable enough for the main article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)#Is Portal:Film in the United States tangential to this article or not? (RFC) (initiated 10 January 2014)? Please consider Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to add Portal:Film in the United States to Gone with the Wind (film) and consider including a comment that you reviewed that discussion in your close. The question posed was: "Do you support or oppose the inclusion of a link to Portal:Film in the United States in this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Request for Comment - Include unreleased films in Filmography sections? (initiated 14 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Interaction ban between User:Rusted AutoParts and User:TreCoolGuy (initiated 14 February 2014)? Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions states: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
There are multiple issues. I reverted a relist as I think prolonging this discussion is disruptive. There was never a deletion argument. Topic is litigious. Nude photos of the topic are part of the discussion, and editors are using f-bombs. The topic is a pastor and editors are using profanity. Note that I requested review at WP:BLP for the f-bombs and profanity. The bots are still having trouble a week after the initial opening of the AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Sjakkalle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 23:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:24.24.157.243/Hikvision (initiated 6 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zooxoxoxo/The Weeknd (initiated 5 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pameliadarden (initiated 4 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kal'krit (initiated 31 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qetesha (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
RFC discussion must be closed. --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed. Gigs (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Scottywong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkshadow1990/Britain's Got Talent (initiated 6 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ItsLauraK (initiated 31 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sabinebalve (initiated 28 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AHRtbA==/Commplaint (initiated 28 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Will in China/Rabelais (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maximus kron (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Billkirwin (initiated 25 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Katyn massacre#Merger proposal (initiated 11 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Anti-Katyń be merged into Katyn massacre?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Slakr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 01:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 01:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Open since 2 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am reviewing this now, and have asked previous discussion participants to weigh in on the later-added proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed [2] by User:Xoloz on 19 Feb as move to Manchester Liberalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Open since 7 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed [3] by User:Xoloz on 19 Feb as "not moved". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Very lengthy discussion, open since 22 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Closed [4] 19 Feb by User:BDD as "no consensus". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ayub Karimi (initiated 5 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted. MER-C 10:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Infoamal (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted. MER-C 10:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sergomen1/Virtonomics1 (initiated 4 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by BDD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfawal/sandbox (initiated 27 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by BDD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done --BDD (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? (initiated 29 October 2013)? There were several participants and some previous discussions, linked there. The strength of consensus is relevant to a dispute, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 86#Angus Deayton. Thanks, Narrow Feint (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Specifically, does this discussion constitute a clear consensus for the removal of "UK" from placenames (infoboxes etc) across the whole project, via mass edits? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Closed Gigs (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Open since 18 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Keith D (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Move reviews from January 2014
- Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 January#Gjakova
- Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 January#Cannabis (drug)
It would be nice if someone could close the above two discussions. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Both discussions were Closed by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Buffs/PD-Iran in US (initiated 13 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
open since mid-January. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
open since mid-January. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8#Template:wprk, as this has not been relisted. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Should the article be at Bothell or Bothell, Washington? (initiated 29 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- In progress. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Closed, I'll leave the related moratorium discussion for other wiser heads. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This RfD has been open for nearly three weeks. — Scott • talk 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC on QPQ for non self noms (initiated 5 January 2014)? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 101#RFC on QPQ for non self noms. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion opened on 23 January, stalled since 16 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion stalled. Has already been relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Open since 28 December 2013. While the discussion was underway, the page was moved out-of-process from Liberal Christians to Free Christians (Britain). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Xoloz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist (anime)#RfC: Regarding splitting the anime(s) (initiated 6 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "So this is a discussion onto whether the anime(s) should be compiled into one article or be merged back to the main article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genderqueer#Merge proposal (initiated 2 September 2012)? Several comments have made in August 2013, October 2013, and February 2014. The opening poster wrote: "I think Pangender and Genderqueer cover the same ground." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
open for over 10 days, with discussion happening in two places. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Month-old RfC still awaiting closure.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note to closer: The RFC was at Template_talk:Height#Human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres, with a related discussion at Template talk:Height#Straw poll on units of measure output by this template.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This looks like one of those discussions that started out pretty close but has pretty clearly broken one way as it went on. It was up for closure two days ago, and with the large amount of participation, relisting would likely be of very little value. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Joe Decker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 9#Pepsi Coliseum which has been open for over 14 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Can an admin look at Talk:Jahi McMath#Move to Jahi McMath case, Normaly this would be a no-brainder move, but there weare a series of procediral mistakes and now it needs an admin....CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Xoloz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed at Talk:Comedian#Request_for_Comment_on_Comedian.2FComedienne. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed – Consensus is for option B, that 'comedienne' should not be included in the first sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Please evaluate for possible snow keep. Seven keep !votes (including one from the subject of the RFC/U), no delete !votes. If possible, please comment on when it is and is not proper to nominate an RFC/U for deletion and when one should request a revdel. It would be quite useful to have some ground rules to refer to the next time an RFC/U is sent to MfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The result of the discussion was keep. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This has been open since 25 December 2013 (UTC). NorthAmerica1000 11:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: Probably because it's not transcluded on any log page. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done --slakr\ talk / 02:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Relist past 7 days. LibStar (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted. MER-C 12:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
NFCR discussion needing closure 3
- WP:NFCR#Shooting of Trayvon Martin
- Done by User:SlimVirgin. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#Unilever brands
- Done by Miniapolis (talk · contribs). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Yekîneyên Parastina Gel.jpg
- Done Deleted by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) and closed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Hrw froth.PNG
- Done by Miniapolis (talk · contribs). -- TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:'Still Life -20', mixed media work by --Tom Wesselmann--, 1962, --Albright-Knox Gallery--.jpg
- Done -- TLSuda (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#Multiple files in Regeneration (Doctor Who)
- Done -- TLSuda (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:MagrittePipe.jpg
- Done -- TLSuda (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#Black Widow (Claire Voyant)
- Done -- TLSuda (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- is the current list. Werieth (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This is something of a snow close request. The template was nominated for deletion on specious grounds by an editor who has had run-ins with the creating editor. Since then, only one other person has said to delete: another editor who has had a run-in with the creating editor. The rationale of both these editors has been questioned, and their arguments have been dismissed as inappropriate. Eleven others have supported keeping the template on fairly good and solid grounds. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 14#Average frustrated chump, which has been open for over 14 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done for discussion/Log/2014_February_14&diff=597892171&oldid=596937446 Closed by me as delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This request by Jimmy xu wrk, an administrator and checkuser in zhwiki, is there for 20 days.--GZWDer (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 01:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed as delete by User:The Bushranger on 13:43, 2 March 2014. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 25 Jan, relisted twice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Dpmuk (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened Feb 9, relisted 18 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened Feb 8, relisted 16 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Cuchullain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 16 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done. If anyone wants to help fix the links please feel free! Will take me a while otherwise. Dpmuk (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- (Discussion now at Talk:Ernie (Sesame Street)#requested move). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions (initiated 9 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I suggest a one year moratorium on WP:USPLACE change discussions." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done, although people won't like how I closed it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Open since 20 February 2014 without being relisted. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by RoySmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:WPCATSUP
- Relisted by BDD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT
- Closed by BDD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16 which has been open for over two weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please relist or disposition Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 17#Sunapee trout which has been open for more than two weeks since relisting the first time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Closed by me [5] as retarget to Sunapee golden trout. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 27 January, relisted 8 Feb. Discussion stalled since 27 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 24 January, relisted 11 Feb, discussion stalled since 20 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 05:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 19 Feb. Discussion stalled since 28 Feb. There seems to be a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- Done – EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13#Pasay Arena
- Closed by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13#Murtha
- Closed by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13#Several redirects to Template:Edit protected, Template:Edit semi-protected, and Template:Edit template-protected
- Relisted by Steel1943 (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 13, which have been open for over two weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Group discussion of 7 related articles, opened 14 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 3 February, relisted 10 Feb. No opposes, but only support is the nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (Discussion now at Talk:Sharavati#Requested move.) Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Xoloz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened Feb 9, relisted 17 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 10 Feb, not relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Railway station RMs
- Talk:Reedham railway station (London)#Requested move
- Closed by Xoloz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 01:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Whitchurch railway station (Hampshire)#Requested move 2
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Talk:Reedham railway station (Norfolk)#Requested move
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
3 very similar discussions, opened on 21 February. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Need an Admin to Close a Group Photo Deletion Request
- A discussion about some proposed deletions of historic photos which had written permission from their source, the San Francisco Public Library, is about 7 days old (see link below).
- It seems that of the 3 photos which were recently tagged with Deletion Requests, the below photo has still not had its templates modified to any extent to reflect any result of that discussion.
- The other 2 photos of that single deletion request have had partial adjustments to their deletion templates but I have to wonder if they are still unresolved (see links below).
- Is there an admin here who could make a determination as to the consensus of that discussion, and possibly close that discussion and make final adjustments to the Photo Files Tags? James Carroll (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 15#Steve Austin, which has been open for almost 14 days since the previous relist. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted by Steel1943 (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened Feb 9, relisted 17 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (Discussion now at Talk:Gaza City#Requested move 2014.) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 5 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 10 Feb, relisted 19 Feb. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 15 February . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation (initiated 16 January 2014)? Please consider the previous RfCs in your close:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 (closed 23 August 2013)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission (closed 8 October 2013)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria (closed 13 January 2014).
The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note to potential closers: I have commented on earlier RfCs so I really shouldn't close since I'm somewhat involved, but here is my take on the consensus you can use as a cheat sheet, or even just rubber stamp if you are willing to stand behind it as your own:
- There appears to be rough consensus for Anne Delong's 6 point whitelist-only approach.
- There is some concern about the word "banned" in point 3 as bitey, and imprecise as we aren't talking about WP:BAN, and rough consensus to change that to something softer. No particular consensus on the exact softer wording, but that could be worked out later.
- There was some discussion about whether a separate blacklist is necessary, but rough consensus seemed to be that de-whitelisting is effective as a blacklist with less social stigma.
- All users involved seem to recognize there's no technical way to enforce this in any real sense at this time, but the AfC helper script could be modified to not function unless they are on the whitelist. No current technical means will stop users from installing a "hacked" AfC helper or just manually moving pages. No consensus to use editfilter for technical enforcement.
- A point was raised that a negative userright such as "denymove" could be used for technical enforcement, but even the proposer suggested that was something that would require a new community-wide discussion and would likely be controversial, so as such, should be considered out-of-scope for this RfC.
- To sum up the last two points, there does seem to be rough consensus of the participants that a secure technical means to enforce the whitelist is desirable, but not currently available, and that new proposals for such a thing would require a new community-wide discussion, since they might prove controversial.
- There appears to be rough consensus for Anne Delong's 6 point whitelist-only approach.
- Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments seem pretty unanimous and there's little positive to be gained by leaving this to run any longer. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Ucanlookitup (talk · contribs) due to inactivity. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a proposal to blacklist a website, could someone look at the reasonably short discussion and see if there is consensus? Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done no consensus for blacklist Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for an experienced and uninvolved user to close this lengthy RfC on Bieber's page. It's been open for more than a month now (10 Feb), with discussion from at least eighteen users. Thank you. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done general support for inclusion. More discussion needed on specific wording or points. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by The ed17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia#Adding stress marks to Russian names (initiated 8 January 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The opening poster wrote:
Hi all, as some of you will know, some time ago there was a proposal to remove stress marks from Russian words that appear inside the text of articles on the English Wikipedia. The decision was to keep the stress marks, as there is consensus that they are useful.
Because they are useful, some of us are interested in taking this to the next level, and actively add stress marks to as many articles as possible. We'll only work on Russian words that appear inside calls to the lang-ru template, and we will only add the stress marks when we are sure that it is safe to do so, that is, that the information is correct and there is no ambiguity.
Could I please ask you guys if there is consensus for this task? I would really appreciate your support, because I want to improve as many articles as possible.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Chris Christie? The question was, "Should the article include information about actions taken by Christie administration officials, such as their involvement in the George Washington Bridge lanes closure and in the distribution of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds?" The RfC has been open 30 days, and discussion has subsided. Dezastru (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Opened 13 Feb, several screenfuls of supports and opposes and a few comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Related move at Talk:International recognition of Kosovo#Requested move should probably closed alongside the above. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#Closers needed for contentious RM. I think it should be noted that the claim there that most of the "support" votes are invited to that page by the offline canvassing is pure rubbish... I did a quick count and found nine supporters including myself and several other admins, every last one of us with long edit histories on a variety of subjects and behaviour records that speak of our commitment to Wikipedia policies and polity. The cavassing, if there is any (and I have not investigated that) is purely on the oppose side. Note also that I am disclosing my support of the move, so feel free to check my claims on this matter with that in mind. Andrewa (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please review this community ban discussion and decide what action, if any, should be taken? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I have withdrawn this review request (I initiated) review/Log/2014 March&diff=600429672&oldid=600398936. Procedural close, nullifying effect. -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- No need to make a tentative conclusion, as this was a procedural closure. Going in that area, you could have mentioned other aspects too. -DePiep (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved person please close the deletion discussion for this template? RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#RfC Split by house (initiated 31 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Deadliest Warrior episodes#RfC split article (initiated 5 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light#Proposed merge with Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon (initiated 11 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:U.S. Holidays#RFC: What is the scope? (initiated 19 January 2014)? The discussion is at Template talk:U.S. Holidays#Discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Waterboarding#Request for comment: John A. Rizzo (initiated 6 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Is John A. Rizzo an expert on waterboarding that is, can he be considered a high quality reliable source. Please see above talk section too." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Debora LMP296#RfC on the potential mergers (initiated 9 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Debora LMP296, LMP297 and LMP299 articles be merged? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RfC: I do not want to be bothered by editing bots any more (initiated 17 March 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colton Cosmic (initiated 10 February 2014)? The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 8#Indiggo
- Closed by RoySmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 8#SnarXiv
- Closed by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The above two discussion need closure. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 37#Dates of Birth/Death missing in biographies (initiated 13 March 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus assess the consensus at Talk:Torres (musician)#RfC: Is this article's NPOV really under dispute? / Should the POV tag be removed? (initiated 11 February 2014)? If there is a consensus to remove the {{POV-check}} tag, please remove it. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blood#Blood libel (initiated 22 November 2013). See its subsection Talk:Blood#RfC: Blood libel (initiated 19 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brooklyn Bridge#Proposed edit to Centennial section (initiated 25 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abortion#Should this article focus on the term abortion to mean induced abortion? (initiated 1 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Relist has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion still needs a formal closure with respect to the second part of the proposal, whether to move Crimean peninsula to Crimea or how else to dispose of the plain Crimea title. (The first part of the proposal has in the meantime been implemented and seems uncontentious at this point.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by BDD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist)#RfC: Is it important to show that Mr. Spitzer is pro-control? (initiated 15 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Done The header on the title is not quite representative of the discussion. I have closed as not appropriate to use the word "activist" or "advocate", which seemed to be the point being debated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Request for comment - hatnotes on non-ambiguous titles (initiated 12 January 2014)? The question posed was: "Should we allow pages with unambiguous titles to include hatnotes to disambiguation pages?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#Proposal: MOS should apply to portals (initiated 5 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#User:Kendite/يوسف حسين after there has been sufficient input. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Site ban. I have unarchived the discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259 to allow for further community input. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment @Cunard: Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#User:Kendite/يوسف حسين. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- The Bushranger (talk · contribs) wrote:
The discussion should not have been archived by the bot until after a week had passed.Timestamp to prevent archiving. Time step one week. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
If Middayexpress (talk · contribs), who initiated the site ban discussion, wants to unarchive the section for the further discussion, then I recommend unarchiving it. Otherwise, I withdraw my closure request because there is insufficient participation in the discussion to make a determination to ban or not to ban. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think User:Cunard's unarchiving was helpful, as it permitted additional comments in light of Kendite/يوسف حسين latest, post-OP block on Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic. There appears to be enough comments now for an admin to assess the consensus. It seems that all who weighed in except one user were in favor of a site ban. Middayexpress (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I unarchived the discussion so more editors could review the situation and determine whether Kendite should be banned. I don't think a close of the ban discussion at this time would be helpful, but would an admin take a look and either close the discussion or say "not closed"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not done. The proposal clearly din't gain any traction, and formally closing at this time wouldn't be helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I unarchived the discussion so more editors could review the situation and determine whether Kendite should be banned. I don't think a close of the ban discussion at this time would be helpful, but would an admin take a look and either close the discussion or say "not closed"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think User:Cunard's unarchiving was helpful, as it permitted additional comments in light of Kendite/يوسف حسين latest, post-OP block on Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic. There appears to be enough comments now for an admin to assess the consensus. It seems that all who weighed in except one user were in favor of a site ban. Middayexpress (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The Bushranger (talk · contribs) wrote:
This discussion has been open since January 31, with no additional comment having been made for over two weeks. bd2412 T 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 45#Tweak to recognizability criterion. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not done. It's been inactive for over a month and a close wouldn't accomplish much—further discussion is needed to refine the proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since there is clearly overwhelming support for the proposal, and no request has been made for any refinement, I am deeming it passed. bd2412 T 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Opened February 4th. It has not been 30 days, but there have been no comments for 10 days and consensus seems clear enough to assess. Because I have a COI, I don't think it is appropriate for me to close the RfC boldly and make the corresponding edits, so I am requesting a disinterested admin evaluate consensus. CorporateM (Talk) 21:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- As of today comments are still coming in.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- This RfC has been open for more than 30 days and there have been no comments since Feb 28th. So it could be closed now. I do not want to close since I was a participant. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Sunrise (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- This RfC has been open for more than 30 days and there have been no comments since Feb 28th. So it could be closed now. I do not want to close since I was a participant. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Not formally closed, but the "none" contingent thinks there is a good reason to delete, e.g. the WP:SECONDARY book at [6]. At least a few of the people !voting "none" asked that the ELs be incorporated as references in some expansion, which does not appear to have happened yet. EllenCT (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Single-payer health care#RFC on external links (initiated 19 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Sunrise (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Outrage (2009 film)#Keep Larry Craig entry? (initiated 31 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done — Jess· Δ♥ 01:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2009 flu pandemic timeline#RFC dealing with length of article. (initiated 31 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this page be moved to 2009 flu pandemic timeline (details) and move 2009 flu pandemic timeline summary to this article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Sunrise (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2#RfC: Is this an information page or is it an essay? (initiated 9 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Skaramuca#Jevto Dedijer as a source (initiated 18 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Sunrise (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electricity#RFC: in grammar, is "charge" a count noun or a mass noun? (initiated 23 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Sunrise (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 07:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Rfc: Is YYYY-MM an acceptable date format? Part 4 (initiated 3 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Should display equations be centered? (initiated 11 February 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Duck Dynasty#RfC (initiated 26 February 2014)? The last contribution to the discussion was 7 March 2014. Please consider Talk:Phil Robertson#RfC: Can we include the comments Robertson made about blacks? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Sunrise (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment (initiated 5 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the article contain the statement "Gar Wood and his brother George also kept teddy bears tied to their raceboat engines or is it inappropriate for this article because it is not related to the subject of this article "Mr. Whoppit"?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Armbrust The Homunculus 10:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Re-opening this and requesting another opinion. I see the comments on talk: as being 2:2 either way, with no clear consensus. I do not see Armbrust's claim of 3:1 here. Nor do I appreciate his undiscussed reversion and blanking of expanded content on the same theme, nor his reversion and blanking of my comments on talk: (I don't know what part of WP:TPO that falls under). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's actually 2:1, Trevj only said that it should be covered, but not that in this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Re-opening this and requesting another opinion. I see the comments on talk: as being 2:2 either way, with no clear consensus. I do not see Armbrust's claim of 3:1 here. Nor do I appreciate his undiscussed reversion and blanking of expanded content on the same theme, nor his reversion and blanking of my comments on talk: (I don't know what part of WP:TPO that falls under). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: Indefinitely blocked IP addresses (initiated 2 February 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure#Proposed guideline (initiated 22 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not done. The proposal never gained any traction; closing it wouldn't accomplish much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done Armbrust The Homunculus 08:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wtf Armbrust? Not only did you unilaterally overrule me (which is appalling manners) but your closing summary was completely inaccurate—there wasn't a "rough consensus" for or against anything. Hardly anybody commented and the proposal never got off the ground. hat's very different from consensus being against the proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Feel free to replace it with a better summary, if you want. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wtf Armbrust? Not only did you unilaterally overrule me (which is appalling manners) but your closing summary was completely inaccurate—there wasn't a "rough consensus" for or against anything. Hardly anybody commented and the proposal never got off the ground. hat's very different from consensus being against the proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#RfC: Promoting the links section to policy (initiated 5 February 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Please consider the 14 March 2014 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Proposed replacement of "Disruptive links" section in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header (initiated 16 February 2014)? The discussion is titled "RFC: Should adding {{pufc}} to image captions be a required step in the WP:PUF process?". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Would like an uninvolved editor to close this RFC. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Russia#Request_for_Comment closure request
With good faith I made two parallel RfCs on Talk:Ukraine and Talk:Russia. In retrospect, this is was a dumb idea as they could have incongruent outcomes. As the RfC on Talk:Ukraine has much more discussion and was the first, I request that the one on Talk:Russia be closed and discussion be directed to Talk:Ukraine#Request_for_Comment. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Ukraine#Request for Comment closure request
It has been over a week of discussion on a timely matter. While I see a certain consensus, the issue is quite touchy and a bit of a battleground. Discussion seems to be dwindling and certain users (myself included) have basically been WP:HORSE. It seems ready to be closed to me, but I would like to request that an admin or uninvolved 3rd party consider closing this RfC based on the many many comments and policy arguments made. Note that the RfC has five subsections to it. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)